Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34252017›Full record

ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2021

"

Sara Larrea, Camila Hidalgo, Constanza Jacques-Aviñó, Carme Borrell, Laia Palència

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Centring rights-based access to self-care interventions.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara LarreaDoctoral candidate, Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; Research Coordinator, Women Help Women, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9206-8656
Camila HidalgoAssociate Academic, Departamento Promoción de la Salud de la Mujer y el Recién Nacido, Facultad de Medicina Norte, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Evaluator, Inclusión y Equidad, Santiago, Chile.
Constanza Jacques-AviñóResearcher, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, Barcelona, Spain; Researcher, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8506-780X
Carme BorrellAssociate Professor, Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; Executive Director, Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Researcher, CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain; Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1170-2505
Laia PalènciaSenior Public Health Technician, Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Researcher, CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain; Researcher, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3726-9893
Universitat Pompeu Fabra · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-managed abortion is a common self-care practice that enables pregnant people to exercise their rights to health, bodily autonomy and to benefit from the advances of science even when living in contexts that do not guarantee these rights. In this interpretative qualitative study, we aimed to understand women's abortion trajectories, experiences with self-managed abortion and assessments of the quality of care provided by Women Help Women (WHW, an international activist non-profit organisation working on abortion access). Grounded in feminist epistemology and health inequalities approaches, we conducted eleven semi-structured interviews in Santiago, Chile. We found that illegality, stigma and expectations surrounding motherhood and abortion determined women's experiences. Participants perceived the WHW service as good, trustworthy, fast and affordable, and valued confidentiality and privacy; the quantity and quality of information; having direct, personalised and timely communication with service staff; being treated with respect; and feeling safe, cared for and supported in their decisions. Most participants considered self-managed abortion appropriate and acceptable given their circumstances. Fear was the dominant feeling in women's narratives. Some participants mentioned missing instant communication, in-person support and professional care. We conclude that support, information and company are key to improving abortion seekers' experiences and enabling their decisions, particularly in legally restrictive settings. Centring care in pregnant people's needs and autonomy is fundamental to ensure safe, appropriate and accessible self-care interventions in reproductive health. Social and legal changes, such as public funding for abortion, destigmatisation and decriminalisation, are needed to realise people's right to higher standards of healthcare.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedTelemedicineChileFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPerceptionPregnancyabortionfeminismmifepristonemisoprostolqualitative evaluationquality of careself-managed abortiontelehealth

Identifiers

PMID34252017
PMCPMC8276659
OpenAlexW3179852489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.